-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
The GOP hearts Ayn Rand. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and his father Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), all mention the works of Ayn Rand as being influential in their lives. Even Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas references her work as influence in his autobiography. Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, is an acolyte of Rand’s thinking and knew her personally.
I would like to focus on one aspect of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism, and its implications for Christianity.
Rand saw the role of any philosophical system as the understanding of reality. Reality (existence) and the ability to understand reality (consciousness) are at the heart of Objectivism. Considering existence (reality) and consciousness (man’s awareness of it), Rand assigns primacy to existence, “the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness).” In other words, “wishing doesn’t make it so.”
For Rand, consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists, “consciousness is consciousness of an object.” Eric Johnson, in a review of chapter one of Leonard Peikoff’s book Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, wrote:
Since the nature (identity) of consciousness is to be aware of reality, existence is prior to, necessary for, and not subject to the control of, consciousness.
Consciousness cannot be conscious only of itself because you run into the chicken-and-the-egg problem. Consciousness requires objects to be aware of in order to create consciousness. Sensory deprivation does not validate the notion of consciousness without anything to be conscious of. Consciousness of objects, and their associated memories, were already formed before any experiments with sensory deprivation.
Rand’s primary axiom of Objectivism is the Primacy of Existence. In contrast is the Primacy of Consciousness, “the notion that the universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a consciousness (either human or divine or both).” Rand’s Primacy of Existence is the reason for Objectivism’s position of atheism with respect to religion, especially Christianity and its “creator God.”
The Christian concept of God as a disembodied consciousness that created everything, except itself, is antithetical to Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism. Objectivism provides a solid philosophical foundation for rejecting the Christian worldview.
The Primacy of Existence hasn’t received the media attention that it deserves, and I doubt that Rand’s fans in the GOP/Tea Party would understand its ramifications.
H/T: AlterNet, Anton Thorn, Dawson Bethrick, Objectivism Wiki, Ayn Rand Lexicon.
A question…..since you say the GOP seems to be the ones that are so very very taken with Rand, and I’m not really sure f that’s true for most upstanding Reps,….but isn’t this just a way for the GOP to devalue the labor of oh,I’d say 90% of the rest of the American public….? It really isn’t about what Americans are ‘getting’ from the Government…it is like abortion…they don’t really care about babies, they don’t really care about healthy women…what DO they want? Most people do thier part, work, pay bills, taxes, whatever it takes to support this Country….many do much more than thier share…Ayn Rand makes no difference to the lives of those in this country who keep this country going….what really is the attraction?
W=c,
“An over-reaching or dysfunctional government [. . . ] is not better or even different than no government at all.”
Really?
Ask the Sudanese or the Rwandans about that.
Elaine M,
“Things change in a couple of centuries? Surely you jest!”
Lol – who would have thunk it?!
Tony C.
1, May 5, 2011 at 3:44 pm
————————-
That’s a bit simplistic don’t you think? An over-reaching or dysfunctional government (one that does not deliver the most basic elements of what it was derived to accomplish in the first place) is not better or even different than no government at all. Roco is not completely wrong…a government that exists to oppress 1/2 of those who it governs into the service of the other half, is not a government….it is a different beastie entirely. I’m not sure I understand what you mean by ‘nature’.
“There is nothing magical or inherently wonderful about nature, it is an evolved state, not one ordained by God. ”
Nature and God are not separate entities in my mind…you cannot take one without the other. Nature is not the enemy…anymore than ‘God” status is attainable by a human being. [even Ayn Rand 😉 ]
Bad edit.
“I’ll think put my understanding against yours any day, Mr. Makes Up History and Terminology. And kick your ass every time you try to sell this tripe. My specialties are law, history and English. What’s your professional training again? Civil engineering? Just like I have every other time you’ve wanted to pimp greed. So pardon me while I laugh at your assessments. Speaking of making up history . . .”
SB
“I’ll think put my understanding against yours any day, Mr. Makes Up History and Terminology. And kick your ass every time you try to sell this tripe. Just like I have every other time you’ve wanted to pimp greed. My specialties are law, history and English. What’s your professional training again? Civil engineering?So pardon me while I laugh at your assessments. Speaking of making up history . . .”
“Mountain men fended for themselves all the time.”
And 40 was an old man too.
“Of course they believed in funding government but they didnt believe in funding it to the point we have gotten to. And I am also pretty sure they did not want to tax the pants off of individual labor.”
Psychic being added to your list of superpowers, Übermench? All they said about taxes was that they should be proportionate and fair. Your “hands off” approach to corporations is part and parcel of how GE got off with no tax burden last year when they posted a $14.2 billion profit. So instead of whining about your taxes, how about waking up and smelling the coffee that lax regulation of business resulted in that grotesque inequity of GE’s taxes. But you can only wake up if you want to wake up, so that rules you out, Mr. Rationalizations.
“The simple fact is that most tax money goes to social services and things that would not have been approved by the founders.”
Given that the items you perpetually bitch about are all to promote the general Welfare and provide for the common Defence as mandated by the Constitution, that statement of yours is simply wishful thinking.
“Your arguments are silly and ridiculous and without much more than a superficial understanding of our founding.”
Really.
I’ll think put my understanding against yours any day, Mr. Makes Up History and Terminology. And kick your ass every time you try to sell this tripe. My specialties are law, history and English. What’s your professional training again? Civil engineering? Just like I have every other time you’ve wanted to pimp greed. So pardon me while I laugh at your assessments. Speaking of making up history . . .
“By the way fire services were once paid for by insurance companies to protect their insureds until they were able to talk government into carrying their burden.”
Fire services were also once provided by gangs who would put out the fire and steal your belongings. These “private fire brigades” would often fight with one another over who got to put out the fire . . . and then go collect the insurance companies payment for their services. Making a tidy lil’ profit. This was on top of the fact that these “private fire brigades” would often charge the home or business owner directly before putting out the fire, getting a nice lil’ bump in pay for the efforts at extortion. Insurance paying for private fire brigades and the abuses and generally poor work they did (more fires = more payments) is the driving factor to the adoption of the civilian volunteer and civic tax funded fire departments to replace what was essentially a criminal enterprise subsidized by the insurance industry. Kinda like health care today.
So your example actually goes to prove the point that some services are best rendered by the government on a not-for-profit basis.
You should really try both reading and understanding something about which you speak for a change.
Thanks for doing our work again in disproving your own assertions though. You’re so good at it. Why you bother to argue in the first place is truly a testament to your ego. Because your facts largely made up and/or purposeful distortions (i.e. lies) and your logic is crap. Seems a shame you are demolishing your own arguments for free. Seems a shame that you’re so counter-productive.
You being so concerned with profit and all that.
Stamford Liberal,
Things change in a couple of centuries? Surely you jest!
“And I am also pretty sure they did not want to tax the pants off of individual labor”
Well, considering that taxes for all are at their lowest right now …
“Some small amount of taxation is necessary but if it was so patent, then why did it take almost 120 years to institute an income tax?”
Actually, the first income taxes levied in the U.S. was in April, 1862 … to pay for … ???
“Of course they believed in funding government but they didnt believe in funding it to the point we have gotten to.”
And
“The simple fact is that most tax money goes to social services and things that would not have been approved by the founders.”
The founders specifically designed the Constitution with the understanding that with time, things do change … food for thought …
“Your arguments are silly and ridiculous and without much more than a superficial understanding of our founding.”
Simply a matter of opinion …
Roco,
Are you a mountain man?
Do you always fend for yourself without any benefit of government services or infrastructure?
**********
Regarding taxes: I would prefer that my tax dollars not be used to pay for undeclared wars on other countries and not be given as subsidies to oil companies.
I happen to support social programs like Social Security and Medicare. They’ve helped to keep many elderly Americans from becoming destitute. Ayn Rand herself benefited from Social Security. I believe she also received Medicare benefits.
We are talking about the limits of government. Governments rightful function is defense and protecting people through objective law.
Mountain men fended for themselves all the time.
Some small amount of taxation is necessary but if it was so patent, then why did it take almost 120 years to institute an income tax? European socialists brought the idea of individual taxation to the US or at least made it front and center.
Of course they believed in funding government but they didnt believe in funding it to the point we have gotten to. And I am also pretty sure they did not want to tax the pants off of individual labor.
The simple fact is that most tax money goes to social services and things that would not have been approved by the founders.
Your arguments are silly and ridiculous and without much more than a superficial understanding of our founding.
By the way fire services were once paid for by insurance companies to protect their insureds until they were able to talk government into carrying their burden.
@Woosty (& Roco): Forced cooperation is not cooperation.
True enough, but in the context of modern American society, no cooperation is ever truly forced: One can simply leave the country, get to Yemen or Somalia or South America or South Africa and live life free of all but natural law.
Although tax-evasion is a fraud, taxes themselves are not literally collected at gunpoint, if one wants to stop paying taxes one can always just skip the country. In the meantime, for those that want to stay and exploit the physical, legal and economic infrastructure of the USA, the fact that the price (in taxes) is non-negotiable isn’t really “force,” it is just a non-negotiable amount of rent. If Roco wants to stop paying the rent, he can settle up and terminate his occupancy, nobody will stop him from leaving even if he states his intent to never return.
@Roco: No, I want you to pay your way. Shall you now claim that Jefferson didn’t believe in taxation or funding of the government? Shall you assert that Jefferson believed police, the military, the navy should all be funded voluntarily by the citizenry, and anybody that chose to abstain from paying their fair share (but could still benefit from the national defense) should be allowed to do so?
Pointing at one extreme comment by Jefferson, unchallenged and unexplored, does not describe Jefferson’s full mindset on this issue; or anybody else’s.
I gave you a simple hypothetical you refuse to answer, the Sheriff problem above. I presume you refuse because you, too, cannot imagine a fair solution that relies upon voluntary payment, and saying so refutes your (and Rand’s) entire argument about what constitutes “freedom.”
The upshot is that responsibilities do not make somebody un-free. One can be free and ALSO have responsibilities. Absolute freedom is unattainable in the real world except in the anarchic state, and Rand has no theory of government except the absolute freedom and absolutely anarchic state.
There is nothing magical or inherently wonderful about nature, it is an evolved state, not one ordained by God. Disease is natural, cancer is natural, lethal venom is natural, death in childbirth is natural, the urge to murder a rival for a mate is natural. Who cares what is “natural?” Why should “natural” have any sway with you at all?
In the actually natural state, before government, people were brutally oppressed and ruled by ruthlessly violent gangs of men that were the toughest and baddest ass in the county. In the instances where they were overthrown, it was done by cooperation, either by another ruthless gang or the people tired of being exploited by ruthless gangs. It took cooperation either way.
Having a “brain” does not mean you are meant to be free, most animals have brains and are subjugated. What about being “free” lets you “use” your brain “properly”?
For one thing, who is doing the “using”? If you are an atheist like me and Rand, you ARE your brain, and prisoner brains are just as functional (perhaps more so) than free brains. Brains solve problems and they work their hardest (and by fMRI consume the most energy) when the problems facing the organism pose the greatest threat to survival. I think it is plausible that the average prisoner faces more threats to their survival than the average receptionist living in the burbs, and thus the average prisoner’s brain works a lot harder.
You have no definition of “proper” “usage” of a brain, or any plausible method by which paying your taxes impairs your brain function.
You are not in good company; a fair reading of a representative sampling of the founding fathers would completely repudiate the idea of an unfunded government. Even the Constitution allows for the equivalent of taxes to pay politicians, and they both read it carefully, many times, and still signed it. The idea that governmental functions had to be funded was so obvious to them it was never in dispute.
I choose to keep all of the following services/institutions/infrastructure, etc., that are provided to me by government:
– Public water and a public sewer system
– Trash collection
– Plowed streets
– Public schools and colleges
– Public roads and highways
– Bridges
– Fire department
– Police deparment
– Libraries
That’s just a partial list. I’d like to see Randian folks making their way in the the world in the 21st century with no public/governmental services and infrastructure. They talk a good game–but they’re living in fantasy land.
Gyges
1, May 5, 2011 at 2:25 pm
LOL!!!!! an I didn’t ask to be born either! hahahahaha!
Woosty,
A summation of Objectivism: Wouldn’t it be great if human being functioned completely different then they do?
A less favorable summation: It totally sucks that my parents make me wash the dishes, I didn’t ASK to be provided room and board for the last 15 years.
Roco,
“Forced cooperation is not cooperation.”
I agree. But you are getting the benefits of a society and all of its laws and progresses. How do you pick and choose which things you will support and how will you deal with others who have every right to expect, in return, that which they gave and you benefitted from?
Rands philosophy is not simpy idealistic…it is unrealistic.
…..and thank God for that…….
Gyges,
Why . . . that would mean learning is a collectivist function of society! No. Can’t have any of that. Mr. Self-made Man there might just spontaneous combust if he had to admit that all his “knowledge” – such as it is – is the product of a collective human endeavor. He’s “special” after all.
Buddha,
I think the real question is: how does a human reach that level of “knowledge and experience” in the first place?
Here’s a hint: Thanks to language, we don’t have to keep rediscovering fire every generation.
Did I mention that the next time this country is attacked, you need to take care of that yourself as well?
Yeah.
You sure don’t need anybody else, tough guy.
Now quit slacking.
You’ve got a lot of work to do to ensure your survival without any assistance from others.
Macht schnell, Übermensch.
Oh . . . and you need to exclusively start hunting and growing your own food too, Randie. Can’t have you depending upon farmers and ranchers now can we.